Can we PLEASE attack Syria now?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Germany was at war with Britain. I'm not sure how the two situations are comparable. It's wonderful that you're concerned about the latest media spectacle. There are many millions of human beings around the world that could benefit from a version of that concern that doesn't involve dropping bombs and picking sides in civil wars. What's going on in Syria is a power play between vying factions. By embracing the FSA, the Sunni faction has dropped the facade of a peaceful movement and engaged the state in open conflict. If they aren't prepared to win that conflict, they have no one else to blame but themselves.

The self-righteous mindset behind these interventionist movements is dangerous. We have to stop thinking of small nations as conditionally sovereign.

This isn't just a "power play", it has taken months for the number of military personnel defecting to become even a blip on the radar - the general populace has started using lethal force because the Assad-loyal forces will kill them even if they don't. I said this with Libya as well, when the doctors, students, lawyers and footballers pick up guns you know its bad because it means ordinary people have decided the choice is not live or die.... its die fighting or die on your knees.

Given that they will die if someone does not knock out Assad's heavy weapons (as in Libya) intervention is not unreasonable. All we really did in Libya was level the playing field, it then quickly became clear Gadaffi had little actual support left outside of his mercenaries and clients, and I don't think there's any doubt he was bussing in Africans to be mercs, some of them have even admitted so.

that might have make for pretty and heroic sounding press statements by Mr. Churchill but it isn´t exactly right.
if the Nazis had taken over all of Europe you guys were next....that's pretty clear.

This has never been a convincing argument. The evidence points to Hitler prefering peace with Britain at least in the medium term, because Britain was the greatest Super Power at the time, a status we gave up to defeat Hitler. If you look at a lot of the correspondence, you see Hitler wasn't keen on fighting the British - our ethnic and political and cultural status (in his eyes) mitigated against it.

again..that's a matter of opinion....I do not consider picking the fights we get into, based on our interest or lack thereof, to be either weak or morally bankrupt.

Unarmed civilians have been begging for military intervention for a about eight months, now they have started fighting back on their own. they have more reason to hate the West than before, and they are now turning to the terrorists because they are the only people who will help them, train them, and supply arms.

This isn't Iraq or Afganistan, where we went and foun d a regime opponent, this is Somalia where if we don't back a faction the whole country will go up in flames. Have you SEEN was Somalia looked like in the 80's? Mogadishu was like Paris, and after twenty years the schools and hospitals are just reopening.

he only wore out his entire luftwaffe and few tons of bombs to bring england to its knees and not to mention sending his most able general to kill the brits in africa. he just had an irrational fear for the british homeguard and their coastal defense + navy. if he had just invaded the island, and lets be happy he didnt... luckily he had an even bigger and more irrational fear for russia, lets be happy for that too!

The British went to Africa to fight Hitler, consider instead the situation immidiately following Dunkirk, or before.

[The Stranger]

you are right.. sorry he went to africa to aid the italians. i guess what you say could be true for '39 and early '40 but not after that. but maybe he resolved after he saw that it would come to nothing and the brits would not make peace. i dont know. i do know what you say is true about the americans. however politics is politics and i think its too simple to say churchil did what he did because he was morally outraged... about what? the germans hadnt done much that was really against the moral code, they broke about all the political treaties, and you can call that immoral but its not that outrageous.

the politicians went in for politics, and they sent the soldiers and the soldiers went for ideals, money, love for their fellow human, to rise within the army, because they had no other options.

[Lemur]

I was worried that our Libyan playtime would give people ideas. I was right.

[PanzerJaeger]

This isn't just a "power play", it has taken months for the number of military personnel defecting to become even a blip on the radar - the general populace has started using lethal force because the Assad-loyal forces will kill them even if they don't. I said this with Libya as well, when the doctors, students, lawyers and footballers pick up guns you know its bad because it means ordinary people have decided the choice is not live or die.... its die fighting or die on your knees.

Given that they will die if someone does not knock out Assad's heavy weapons (as in Libya) intervention is not unreasonable. All we really did in Libya was level the playing field, it then quickly became clear Gadaffi had little actual support left outside of his mercenaries and clients, and I don't think there's any doubt he was bussing in Africans to be mercs, some of them have even admitted so.

More propaganda, and more repetition of the same lies that have been disproved over and over again in the past in regard to Libya. There are approximately one million people in the city of Homs alone. Do you honestly believe they'll all be killed if government forces restore control over the area? Of course not. As with any of these rebellions, only the ringleaders and their most ardent and open supporters are at any real risk - apart from those who become collateral damage between the two factions.

Even if one accepts that the international community is right to intervene during genuine genocidal activity, it is most definitely not the West's responsibility (or right) to play bodyguard for the Muslim Brotherhood or any other local rabble rousers. Standing up against a Middle Eastern government is brave, but comes with certain known risks. And apart from that, the actual level of popular support, and even Sunni popular support, for this movement is indefinite at best. To claim this is the government versus the people instead of the government versus a particular group of historically rebellious people is dubious indeed.

The WW2 comparison is laughable. That Britain was not willing to tolerate an expansionist Nazi Germany just across the channel and everything that would entail has absolutely no bearing on the Syrian situation.

[Centurion1]

you want to do it phillip? do it with your countries own bombs and treasure.

this does not concern me and i find these rebels questionable.

[lars573]

I echo the let Syria fight it's own civil war. Also if foreign intervention is required, let Israel do it.

[rory_20_uk]

Overthrowing the leaders in Syria isn't going to be a panacea. Liberating countries in Europe returned them to their previous state. Doing so in Syria is going to leave it the same mess it is now with different people with the advantage.

Europe has its own problems. Let some nice Muslim countries on this one, and waste their blood and treasure on a lost cause.